Citizens For Limited Growth

In Barry Horstman's May 23 article ("Supervisors OK Growth Compromise That Pleases Neither Side"), a misunderstanding of Bob Glaser's past growth support was made. It was Citizens for Limited Growth that gathered signatures and put the "slow growth" initiative on the ballot. Glaser and San Diegans for Managed Growth encouraged and supported the opposing ballot measure, and we therefore lost with a divided vote. The best way to win an election is to divide the vote, and I hope we will remember this example when we have another citizen ballot measure.

In Barry Horstman's May 23 article ("Supervisors OK Growth Compromise That Pleases Neither Side"), a misunderstanding of Bob Glaser's past growth support was made. It was Citizens for Limited Growth that gathered signatures and put the "slow growth" initiative on the ballot. Glaser and San Diegans for Managed Growth encouraged and supported the opposing ballot measure, and we therefore lost with a divided vote. The best way to win an election is to divide the vote, and I hope we will remember this example when we have another citizen ballot measure.

During the first two weeks of December, the San Diego City Council dealt a death blow to the Interim Development Ordinance, the slow-growth and environmental protection legislation they passed last June. Two major projects, Carmel Mountain Ranch and Miramar Ranch North, with more than 10,000 dwelling units, were exempted from the IDO along with 210 more units slated for Pacific Beach and La Jolla. Council members advocating these major exemptions voiced the tired rationale that developer fees and agreements will finance the cost of rapid growth.

The slow growth campaign, which started this summer as an issue-oriented debate over vested building rights and the slope of hillsides, has increasingly turned toward personal attacks and allegations of distortions. Campaign observers and leaders say that the tactics appear to be typical of a high-stakes electoral battle in an age when political operatives at local, state and federal levels have concluded that negative campaigning works. "I don't think it's the exception to the rule in politics anymore," said political consultant Sara Katz, who works for the Coalition for a Balanced Environment, which backs propositions B and H. "It seems to be the direction politics has been heading the last few years."

Ralph Frammolino's article, "Slow-Growth Forces Now Hold City Hall Power" scares me to death. He quotes a lobbyist as saying that nine people, calling themselves Citizens for Limited Growth, have some very real power. The searing question is, who are these people who seem to have so much power over San Diego's growth or demise? Frammolino's thumbnail sketch of the group only heightens my alarm because he points up that these self-anointed gurus are unknown quantities. The majority are relative newcomers.

I've been following the arguments surrounding the no-growth initiatives. On the political hogwash index, Citizens for Limited Growth scores a 10! With Peter Navarro sniveling over the placement of the initiative on the ballot. And Linda Martin bellyaching over . . . In a recent Times article, Tom Mullaney slings his share of the mud, saying the builders have "no substantiation of the claim" that income loss and job loss would result if Proposition J is passed. Irrespective of what fat-cat developers have to say, the highly credible San Diego Economic Development Corp.

The slow growth campaign, which started this summer as an issue-oriented debate over vested building rights and the slope of hillsides, has increasingly turned toward personal attacks and allegations of distortions. Campaign observers and leaders say that the tactics appear to be typical of a high-stakes electoral battle in an age when political operatives at local, state and federal levels have concluded that negative campaigning works. "I don't think it's the exception to the rule in politics anymore," said political consultant Sara Katz, who works for the Coalition for a Balanced Environment, which backs propositions B and H. "It seems to be the direction politics has been heading the last few years."

It's easy for me, a 60-year-old native-born San Diegan, to appreciate the desire of other San Diegans to slow, if not stop, the onslaught of new residents to San Diego. Nevertheless, it strikes me as ironic that so many seem willing to stand back and allow the interlopers themselves to design our initiatives. The Citizens for Limited Growth leadership appears determined to end growth in San Diego at any cost. But hasty solutions, more often than not, result in disastrous consequences.

Several recent articles on growth in San Diego prompt a few reflections, one from the past, and two for the future. First, concerns about growth are not new. This is the 16th anniversary of the first Sierra Club slow-growth movement, a short-lived effort we called "Lesser San Diego" (admittedly stolen from L.A. columnist Art Seidenbaum's tongue-in-cheek "Lesser Los Angeles"). It was an idea clearly ahead of its time and received almost no community response, even though the handwriting was already on the wall.

Citizens for Limited Growth submitted signature petitions to the city clerk's office Tuesday in an effort to get a "Quality of Life" initiative on the November ballot. The initiative would tie the granting of development permits to the developer's performance standards for clean air and water, sewage and waste disposal facilities and traffic.

I've been following the arguments surrounding the no-growth initiatives. On the political hogwash index, Citizens for Limited Growth scores a 10! With Peter Navarro sniveling over the placement of the initiative on the ballot. And Linda Martin bellyaching over . . . In a recent Times article, Tom Mullaney slings his share of the mud, saying the builders have "no substantiation of the claim" that income loss and job loss would result if Proposition J is passed. Irrespective of what fat-cat developers have to say, the highly credible San Diego Economic Development Corp.

During the first two weeks of December, the San Diego City Council dealt a death blow to the Interim Development Ordinance, the slow-growth and environmental protection legislation they passed last June. Two major projects, Carmel Mountain Ranch and Miramar Ranch North, with more than 10,000 dwelling units, were exempted from the IDO along with 210 more units slated for Pacific Beach and La Jolla. Council members advocating these major exemptions voiced the tired rationale that developer fees and agreements will finance the cost of rapid growth.

It's easy for me, a 60-year-old native-born San Diegan, to appreciate the desire of other San Diegans to slow, if not stop, the onslaught of new residents to San Diego. Nevertheless, it strikes me as ironic that so many seem willing to stand back and allow the interlopers themselves to design our initiatives. The Citizens for Limited Growth leadership appears determined to end growth in San Diego at any cost. But hasty solutions, more often than not, result in disastrous consequences.

Ralph Frammolino's article, "Slow-Growth Forces Now Hold City Hall Power" scares me to death. He quotes a lobbyist as saying that nine people, calling themselves Citizens for Limited Growth, have some very real power. The searing question is, who are these people who seem to have so much power over San Diego's growth or demise? Frammolino's thumbnail sketch of the group only heightens my alarm because he points up that these self-anointed gurus are unknown quantities. The majority are relative newcomers.

Several recent articles on growth in San Diego prompt a few reflections, one from the past, and two for the future. First, concerns about growth are not new. This is the 16th anniversary of the first Sierra Club slow-growth movement, a short-lived effort we called "Lesser San Diego" (admittedly stolen from L.A. columnist Art Seidenbaum's tongue-in-cheek "Lesser Los Angeles"). It was an idea clearly ahead of its time and received almost no community response, even though the handwriting was already on the wall.

A coalition of government and business leaders announced Thursday that it intends to place initiatives aimed at controlling growth and unclogging roadways before both city and county voters on the June 1990 ballot. Leaders of the San Diego 2000 Committee said the organization's "Traffic Control and Comprehensive Growth Management" initiatives would require new development to pay at least $643 million toward construction of mass-transit lines, freeways and roads over the next 20 years.

San Diego County supervisors, still unable to reach agreement on critical issues in an alternate slow-growth proposal during a special two-hour hearing Thursday, delayed their decisions until June 8. County officials are attempting to field an alternative measure to the Rural Preservation and Traffic Control initiative being promoted by Citizens for Limited Growth.